Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Teleconference


February 4, 2010


1:00-3:00 p.m. EST


Teleconference Summary Final


Introduction 

Dolores Wesson, GNEB Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), read through a list of callers to confirm who was participating in the teleconference. She 

then asked the representative from the Mexican Embassy to introduce himself. Gerardo Tamayo 

introduced himself as a political and border affairs officer at the Mexican embassy and then 

stated that his role was to do adequate follow-up on the document GNEB is working on. 

Ms. Wesson stated that a quorum for the teleconference was not necessary because the Board 

would not be voting on any issues. 

Identification of Callers 

Jerry Agan, Dr. Diane Austin, Alheli Banos (EPA), Marissa Stone-Bardino (NMED), Dr. Chris 

Brown, Natalia Capel (State), Rafael DeLeon (EPA), Mike Dorsey, Edward Elbrock, Luis Florez 

(DOI), Dr. Paul Ganster, Ann Marie Gantner (EPA), Jose Garcia (EPA), Eugene Green (EPA), 

Mark Joyce (EPA), Stephanie McCoy (EPA), Steve Niemeyer (TCEQ), Theresa Pullman (DHS), 

Rachel Poynter (State), Allyson Siwik, Sally Spener (IBWC), Mary Spock (SCG), Gerardo 

Tamayo (Mexican Embassy), Dolores Wesson (EPA), Annmarie Wolf 

Purpose of the Teleconference 

Dr. Ganster discussed the recent meeting with CEQ and how it was determined that the priorities 

of the Board should be coming up with the best advice on border related environmental issues 

and focusing on specific actionable items. The focus should be both addressing the back log of 

environmental issues and anticipating problems in the future. During the teleconference, specific 

concerns and omissions in the report would be discussed. The tasks of addressing these 

corrections and gaps would be delegated to smaller work groups. 

Timing for the 13th Report 

Mr. Joyce noted that the Board has generally met in Washington D.C. in March or so to produce 

the annual report. He then explained that because of additional time spent on issues related to the 

border fence, the report was bit delayed. An alternative plan was proposed: to meet in Rio Rico 

on March 11th and 12th

, which is prior to March 14th, the day which many of the Board members’ 

terms expire. This meeting date is advantageous because several Board members will already be 

in Rio Rico for another meeting. Furthermore, it ensures that the members who have worked on 

it all year will be present. By the March meeting, the Board would like to have a complete report 

and to only have to deal with small issues. The report will then be printed for a June release in 

Del Rio. Mr. Joyce suggested having the release in Del Rio, which is in the border region, rather 

that in Washington D.C. like in the past. 

Release Location of Report 

Ms. Spener commented that she likes the idea of releasing the report in the border region. 

However, she is concerned that Del Rio is a very small town and very few news outlets would be 

1

able to attend. Mr. Niemeyer agreed and said that if Lisa Jackson did not attend there would be 

no media coverage in Del Rio. Mr. Joyce suggested that this issue be revisited at the meeting in 

Nogales. He explained that Del Rio was not set in stone and could be changed to garner more 

press coverage. Mr. Niemeyer pointed out that there are no flights into Del Rio and subsequently 

suggested San Antonio as an alternative. No conclusion was reached. 

Discussion of Chapter 8 

Mr. Dorsey stated that he had combed previous reports, pulling out the relevant information for 

the new one. He said that there are multiple recommendations, roughly ten, that were made 

recently that have not yet been implemented. Although he is satisfied with the number of 

recommendations, he is open to the idea of attempting to reduce the number to four or five. 

HAZMAT Inspections 

Ms. Pullman asked for clarification with regard to recommendation number one. She wanted to 

clarify if it was asking for federal funding for more state and local inspection staff. She also 

wanted to know if this was related to HAZMAT inspections. Mr. Dorsey explained that it was 

related to providing necessary emergency response equipment, adequate training for first 

responders and practice exercises along the border. Ms. Pullman wanted a line in the report about 

equipment. Mr. Dorsey said that such a statement was already present. Ms. Pullman suggested it 

be reworded to be more direct, suggesting the line “for use with first responders and emergency 

vehicles.” Mr. Dorsey agreed to make and send out the revisions. As per Ms. Pullman’s 

suggestion, Mr. Dorsey agreed to add HAZMAT inspections as well. 

Insurance Liability 

With regard to suggestion number two, Ms. Pullman wanted to know if anyone had 

communicated with the insurance industry about the liability issue for cross-border emergency 

responders and reciprocity. Mr. Dorsey responded that the USEPA has been discussing this issue 

with both American and Mexican insurance companies. 

Emergency Responders 

With regard to suggestion number three, Ms. Pullman stated that we have processes in place to 

expedite emergency responders. She suggested that the Board add a statement acknowledging 

the existence of these processes and also acknowledging the fact that they need to be improved. 

Mr. Dorsey explained that these procedures are largely regional and not standardized across the 

border. Ms. Pullman pointed out that there needs to be recognition of the legal agreements in 

place and agreed with Mr. Dorsey’s suggestion to add the phrase “in certain areas along the 

border if this occurs.” Dr. Ganster cited the federal role as facilitating the coordination with the 

Mexican side. Ms. Poynter suggested the phrase “developing uniform procedures and encourage 

coordination with the Mexican government.” Ms. Pullman agreed and Mr. Dorsey made note of 

it. 

Mr. Agan emphasized the importance of the Texas county judges and said that without their 

involvement the governor will not be involved. In Texas, the county judge serves as the 

emergency management director. He then clarified that the country judge has to initialize the 

request for assistance from the state and that the state has to request assistance from the feds. 

2

Communication Security 

With regard to suggestion number four, Ms. Pullman wanted to add a line about “maintaining 

secure operations” because of potential hacking into open lines of communications. She was 

concerned about the possible security risks associated with open lines of communication and 

suggested something more secure. Ms. Poynter commented that there is a section of the State 

Department that has been working with the Mexican government on telecom issues. She said that 

there is often a discrepancy between decisions made on the federal level in Mexico and what is 

implemented locally. She offered to send Mr. Dorsey language about this issue. Ms. Pullman was 

satisfied. 

Phrase “Fully Implement” 

With regard to number five, Ms. Pullman asked to clarify the meaning of “fully implement” and 

wanted to know how this agreement was falling short. Ms. Poynter clarified that the federal 

agreement signed in 2008 has not yet been approved by the Mexican Congress. She also said that 

the agreement should not be viewed as a binding contract but rather a promise of cooperation 

enabling the federal government to facilitate state and local compliance. It is important to 

remember that the Mexican government is more centralized than ours. The State Department was 

satisfied with the language used in the report. The phrase “fully implement” was discussed in 

more detail. Ms. Poynter said that it means to start forming working groups on both sides of the 

border that meet continuously. Ms. Pullman suggested editing the report to make it more active 

by saying “upon passage of the agreement by Mexico we will form working groups” rather than 

“fully implement.” Ms. Poynter disagreed with this suggestion saying that the purpose of the 

report was to encourage innovations rather than to mandate them. Ms. Wesson concurred that the 

original language was satisfactory. 

National Response Framework 

With regard to recommendation six, Ms. Pullman called into question the following statement: 

“clarify the chain of command and specially define what is being coordinated and when in order 

to facilitate quick and efficient response and clearly establish financial responsibility.” She 

pointed out that the national response framework is pretty clear about the chain of command and 

that the national response framework is fairly dynamic. She noted that in the wake of the Haitian 

earthquake the framework would likely be revisited. Mr. Dorsey suggested that the sentence in 

the overarching recommendation be changed. Mr. Niemeyer clarified that the issue at hand is 

who is in charge when American responders go to Mexico, or vice versa. Ms. Pullman said that 

she would attempt to rewrite it and that they should move on. Dr. Ganster pointed out that from a 

federal perspective the language looks good but it is often ineffective when applied to a tight 

timeframe or emergency situation on a local level. 

Additional Discussion 

Mr. Garcia said that he had sent the report to his team members and their deadline for response 

was coming up. He said that he would send any comments directly to the author; Ms. Wesson 

approved this idea and reminded everyone to always copy her on emails. Dr. Ganster added that 

increased federal response on the border is necessary so that border communities receive the 

same amount of attention as other communities in the US. He said this emphasizes the theme that 

3

“things are different on the border and that the border brings different and unique challenges.” 

Ms. Wesson liked the sentence he used. 

Ms. Pullman called attention to the statement on page 45 that “ports of entry lack staff to inspect 

all shipments of hazardous materials” because of concerns regarding its validity. Mr. Dorsey 

countered that not every port of entry is like San Diego or El Paso and that many do lack 

sufficient staff. Ms. Pullman argued that every single vehicle is inspected properly. Dr. Brown 

suggested that this conversation be moved offline because the teleconference needed to move on. 

Discussion of Water 

Mr. Niemeyer stated that he had been told the water recommendations are too long but he is 

having trouble deciding what to cut. He noted the addition of the case study of Nogales and said 

it was important because it is a confluence of a lot of different issues. Dr. Ganster suggested the 

emphasis the importance of bi-national cooperation on water management in order to bolster 

water security, citing the vulnerability of resources on both sides. Ms. Poynter brought up the 

fact that the State Department might have a few tweaks for number four but suggested it be 

discussed at another time. Mr. Garcia had some comments from EPA that he said he would 

forward to the group. 

Ms. Pullman commended Ms. Koerner for her efforts on this chapter and called everyone’s 

attention to page 42. She asked for comments. Ms. Spener pointed out that there may be some 

overlap between the discussion about ports of entry and the discussion of HAZMAT materials. 

She suggested that some of the duplications be removed to reduce redundancy. 

Border Fence Letter 

Ms. Wolf stated that because the border fence letter was included in the report, the discussion of 

the border fence in this section was unnecessary. She also commented that the two documents 

are not necessarily consistent with each other. Mr. Dorsey agreed that whatever is included in 

this section about the border fence should be consistent with the letter. Ms. Wolf argued that this 

section sounded more like a Department of Homeland Security rebuttal to the letter rather than 

the Boards’ thoughts. It was clarified that the DHS was assigned to write this section because 

they volunteered to do so in a teleconference. Mr. Dorsey pointed out that many of the 

recommendations are not actually recommendations; Ms. Pullman agreed. Dr. Brown agreed 

with Mr. Niemeyer and Mr. Dorsey, along with Ms. Wolf. He also suggested merging Theresa’s 

recommendations with those of Elaine’s. Dr. Ganster then suggested that each Board member 

add their suggestions to it and send it to Dolores, Elaine and him. The three of them would then 

come up with a modified text that incorporated everybody’s suggestions. Ms. Pullman 

emphasized the importance of including a chapter about border security, but ensured the 

recommendation would be edited to actually be a recommendation. Dr. Ganster then suggested 

that people send him comments and he would combine them into one draft to send to Dolores 

and the DHS. He also added that DHS did a good job and there are only a few tweaks to be 

made. Ms. Wolf agreed with Dr. Ganster’s idea. Dr. Austin brought up that the tone of the report 

should not be that of a federal agency report and that having Dr. Ganster look through it would 

alleviate this problem; Mr. Dorsey agreed. He emphasized the fact that the report should read 

like it came from an advisory board, although he did not want to discount the extensive federal 

participation. Ms. Pullman stated that she would like her agency to have the final say on their 

4

chapter, but Dr. Austin pointed out that the entire report is authored by the Board as a whole, and 

credit is not given to individuals. 

Discussion of Air Quality 

Ms. Siwik introduced herself and then identified the following holes in this section of the report: 

background information on recommendation four, a border crossing table, the accuracy of the 

recommendations of diesel emission standards in Mexico, and cross referencing between the Air 

Quality, Climate and Alternative Energy chapters. Dr. Ganster wanted to modify the section 

about recommendations related to air basins. He cited a permanent need for monitoring ports of 

entry and how such ports should be dealt with as specific areas within the air basins. The levels 

of contamination are particularly high in ports of entry. Ms. Siwik agreed to add this information. 

Dr. Austin recalled last year’s discussion of cross border trading and emission. She said that it 

was a tricky subject because each state had different policies. She wanted to call everyone’s 

attention to the addition of this language because it had been hotly debated last year. Ms. Siwik 

stated that there was language in the report recognizing that much would need to be worked out 

if cross border trading was pursued. Mr. Niemeyer said that in the past EPA had problems with 

including specific recommendations and then pointed out that it requires state authorization. Ms. 

Poynter also cited cross border emissions standards between Mexico and the U.S. being a 

problem and noted the issue of capacity building to ensure that both systems are similar. 

Dr. Austin brought up the brick kiln project and its success with regard to emission trading. She 

said that there was an entire paragraph about it and questioned its necessity. Mr. Niemeyer 

commented that the paragraph makes the brick kiln project appear wildly successful when this 

was not actually the case, citing the fact that only eight of the twenty-four kilns were operational. 

Dr. Austin said that the example demonstrates that although the idea is promising, it did not 

actually work that well in practice. Ms. Wolf volunteered to look at that paragraph and to 

possibly add language about a similar project implemented in Yuma. 

With regard to recommendation number one, Ms. Poynter said that it should be edited to 

recognize that EPA colleagues would have more knowledge on bi-national air shed management 

than state officials would. Ms. Siwik agreed and offered the fact that JAG was set up as an 

appendix to the La Paz agreement as an example. 

With regard to number seven, Ms. Poynter sought clarification about the purpose of the 

statement. She said that unless there’s a desire to reflect that the Board wanted more funding for 

air quality projects it might be unnecessary. She said that if the Board wants more funding from 

BECC it needs to concretely demonstrate the documented environmental benefits. Dr. Austin 

compared this to the situation in Nogales, where as they are expanding their port of entry it is 

likely that more people will start to use it, thus increasing pollution. She cautioned that 

accountability in air quality needs to be viewed in the big picture. Ms. Poynter agreed and asked 

whether or not recommendation number seven should be removed or altered. She stated that it 

did not necessarily make sense to create a new fund because NAD Bank’s capital is already 

sufficient to fund air quality projects. She clarified that these projects are being funded through 

loans, not grants. Ms. Siwik suggested grant funding from the Treasury, EPA and State for some 

project on the Mexican side that could have some of the most cost effective emission reductions. 

5

Ms. Poynter emphasized the importance of a reference to NADBank but said that it needs to be 

targeted to make sense. She explained that most air quality projects are quite expensive and thus 

require loans, rather than grants. She went on to say that grant funding from NADBank could be 

effective for small scale projects on the Mexican side. 

Border Crossing Vehicles 

Dr. Ganster brought up a concern regarding the unrestricted flow of polluting vehicles from the 

U.S. to Mexico and that are responsible for a vast proportion of air pollution. He questioned 

whose domain this issue was. Ms. Poynter cited the recent clean energy climate meeting 

between the U.S. and Mexico as another forum in which this issue was raised. In that case, the 

Department of Energy said that it’s a state, not a federal issue. 

Ms. Pullman raised a concern with recommendation number five, which implements measures to 

reduce vehicle idling at ports of entry. She worries that attempts to get people across the border 

faster with less time idling will compromise border security. When she first read the 

recommendation, she thought it meant people turning off their vehicles during the process of 

crossing the border. She also cited executive order 13514 which requires them to explore 

alternative fuel vehicles. Ms. Siwik said that creative ideas should be explored to balance border 

security concerns with environmental issues. Ms. Pullman concurred. 

Discussion on Habitat 

Mr. Florez emphasized the fact that his section should be considered a preliminary draft and 

apologized for it not being more final. He is meeting with the Biological Resources Management 

Division in Fort Collins and the National Park Service soon to garner more information. He is 

also meeting with Congressman Guilford of Arizona to establish border monitoring protocol for 

the agency. The additional information that will be added to the report will be regarding how 

federal agencies will monitor these impacts and what the actual protocol will be. 

Park Ranger Border Crossing 

Dr. Ganster recalled a past visit to Big Ben National Park and how park rangers were no longer 

able to informally communicate with their Mexican counterparts because of heightened security 

post September 11th. He noted that Washington makes no distinction between the formalities of a 

trip to Tiajuana and a trip to Paris. Dr. Austin cited a similar problem in collaboration on revegetation habitat development projects on the Arizona border. Mr. Agan pointed out that state 

officials in Texas can no longer enter Mexico easily. Mr. Florez said he hopes to coordinate with 

the Park Service and the State Department to make short trips like this more accessible. Speaking 

from the State Department’s perspective, Ms. Poynter said that such a mechanism is in place and 

she would be willing to write a recommendation helping to facilitate its implementation for DOI 

employees. She described it as a blanket clearance that addresses the paperwork issue, but not 

the issue of travel time. Mr. Garcia stated that some people on the border program have the 

Century pass which does facilitate the process but noted that the application for it is a 

cumbersome process. He thought there might be a way to simplify the application to make it 

more accessible. 

Dr. Ganster’s final comment was that it would be appropriate for the DOI to get involved in the 

next generation of Border 2012. Mr. Florez agreed. Mr. Niemeyer thought that including such a 

6

recommendation would be advantageous. Dr. Brown stated that it would easily be worked into 

the institutional chapter and that it’s certainly an important issue. Mr. Florez invited people to 

send him those comments and volunteered to run them by Dolores and Paul. Ms. Pullman said 

DHS would send in their comments. 

Discussion on Institutional Mechanisms 

Dr. Ganster asked Dr. Brown to move the Institutional Mechanisms Chapter forward by taking 

comments and incorporating them. Dr. Brown obliged. 

Ms. Wesson suggested that smaller working groups be set up for individual chapters so that 

people could hash out these issues over the phone. Thus, people could participate where they 

have expertise and interest. Dr. Brown agreed with this suggestion. Ms. Wesson reminded the 

group that the February 19th deadline is very important to ensure that the February 25th 

conference call is productive. 

Discussion on Climate Change 

Ms. Wesson acknowledged that because Ricardo Martinez is not here so she would speak for 

climate change. She thought that there needs to be input from the State Department. She 

recognized that the draft was still in the development stage and asked for volunteers for the 

working group. Ms. Poynter said that she has input with regard to the meeting that happened last 

week and would be happy to provide some language. The two agreed to work together as they 

had both been in touch with Sue Stendebach. Ms. Bardino from the state of New Mexico said she 

would like to help with the climate change section. 

Discussion of Solid Waste 

Dr. Ganster remarked that he needed to add a section to Solid Waste regarding the tire issue, 

which he recognizes is quite important. Mr. Garcia said that he is still waiting to hear from Emily 

Pimentel, who is their waste person for the border. Ms. Pullman added that DHS will be sending 

in their comments shortly. Mr. Niemeyer discussed a meeting of the CEC about waste he 

attended in November. He said that people are still trying to come up with hazardous waste 

tracking mechanisms that they wrote in a report ten years ago. He remarked that people on the 

border do not seem to care about hazardous waste anymore, but rather focus their attention on 

solid waste and tires. Dr. Ganster volunteered to add to the solid waste chapter and said he would 

send his comments to Mr. Niemeyer. 

Discussion of Alternative Energy 

Ms. Wesson asked for more volunteers to work on this chapter. Mr. Niemeyer volunteered his 

colleague in border affairs, Ross Pumfrey, and identified him as an energy guru. Ms. Siwik 

offered to help to ensure that this chapter is integrated with the Air Quality chapter. Ms. Wesson 

remarked that the chapters regarding Air and Climate also needed to be integrated. Dr. Ganster 

said he would send that chapter to Ms. Siwik and a few Mexicans he had been working with. He 

requested that Mr. Niemeyer forward it to Ross Pumfrey and Soll Sussman to get additional 

input. 

7

Acknowledgement of Public Participant 

Ms. Wesson wanted to remind everybody that there was a public participant on the link, Mr. 

Tamayo, who is a border political officer at the Mexican Embassy in Washington D.C. He had 

no comments regarding the report but looks forward to seeing the final copy. Mr. Niemeyer 

requested that Mr. Tamayo’s contact information be sent out the Board and Ms. Wesson agreed 

to do so. 

Closing of Call 

Ms. Wesson announced the conclusion of the call and reminded everybody that the report’s title 

is “Blueprint for Action on the US Mexico Border.” She urged people to bring up any concerns as 

soon as possible because text needed to be finished by February 19th

. She also encouraged board 

members to start thinking about pictures. 

Mr. Florez thanked members of the Board who had forwarded him relevant articles and 

encouraged other members to do so. 

Ms. Wesson reminded the Board that the next teleconference was on February 25th and therefore, 

all information needed to be submitted by the 19th allowing everyone ample time to read it. Rio 

Rico will be held on March 11th and 12th. There will be a panel on border issues although they 

are still looking for speakers from the DOI and DHS. Ms. Pullman and Mr. Florez are looking 

for these speakers. The report needs to be finalized in Rio Rico. Any and all questions should be 

directed to either Ms. Wesson or Dr. Ganster. 

Mr. Garcia interjected that he is going to ask people in his office to look over the alternative 

energy chapter and would let Ms. Wesson and Dr. Ganster know by tomorrow. 

Dr. Ganster thanked everyone, especially DHS, for their hard work and time. He reminded 

everybody that a bit more work was needed to make the report excellent. Mr. Niemeyer 

emphasized the importance of a representative from DHS coming to Rio Rico. Ms. Pullman said 

they were working on ensuring that a representative would be able to attend and that they would 

finalize that in the near future. 

The call was ended. 

8